David Borrow: Many pensioners rely on interest from savings to supplement their state pension. They have seen that income drop considerably as interest rates have fallen. Will my hon. Friend look again at the way in which the amount of savings held impacts on the range of benefits that a pensioner is entitled to receive?

Nia Griffith: Some former Woolworth's employees might be fortunate enough to get one of Asda's 7,000 new jobs, but for many other redundant workers, there might be a mismatch between their present skills and those required for any other jobs that are likely to become available in the foreseeable future. In the light of the comments of a former Woolworth's employee on television yesterday that she would have to be unemployed for six months before becoming eligible for any new training, what help with training can people expect from jobcentres, and what plans does my right hon. Friend have to introduce more flexibility in order to give redundant workers earlier access to training schemes, when that is clearly what is required?

James Purnell: My hon. Friend makes the important point that we should be getting help to people, even before they are made redundant. That is why we have been working with Woolworth's and others to get help for people to retrain, if necessary, and to improve their CV and their knowledge of how to look for work. From day one of their unemployment, people are able to train, as long as they combine that with a job search, and, after six months, we step up the support that we offer to people. We think that that is the right approach.

Anne McIntosh: Can the Minister tell the House what happens at the end of six months when those claimants come off jobseeker's allowance? Do they no longer feature on the register of the unemployed? How many of them are in work? It is an absolute scandal that those people receive money for six months, and are then no longer on the unemployment register longer while still in employment.

Robert Flello: Sadly, with the huge decline in jobs in the ceramic industry in north Staffordshire over many years, the trade union Unity, the former ceramic union, has extensive experience of helping people back into work. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the work being done, particularly at Wedgwood recently, and would he care to visit my constituency to see the factory and meet workers and others affected by the downturn?

William Cash: The Minister may know that this morning, on a television programme, Derek Simpson said that the Prime Minister had had meetings regarding the three rulings of the European Court only about a month ago, and that some action was expected as a result of those discussions. He added, in reply to a question, that it appeared that that action had been dropped. Can the Minister tell us what action was proposed, and whether it was in line with what Alan Johnson said on the programme yesterday?
	Will the Minister also ensure that if it is impossible to overcome the European Court rulings—which we all know is the case—we will legislate in the House of Commons to ensure that we provide proper and fair treatment for the workers and trade unions of this country?

Stephen Timms: Indeed, I have just named Joseph Stiglitz, who made the point that Britain did the right thing when the economy was good, thanks to the rules and framework that we introduced in 1997. That fiscal responsibility is explains why we can afford to borrow more now to support our economy through these difficult times.

David Gauke: The Minister has boasted about the Government's record on public finances since 1997. Is he aware of the quotation from the Institute of Fiscal Studies last week? It states:
	"Labour entered the crisis with one of the largest structural budget deficits in the industrial world and a bigger debt than most OECD countries, having done less to reduce debt and—in particular—borrowing than most since 1997."

Stephen Timms: I will gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman in a few moments, after I have made a little progress.
	At the same time as reducing our public debt, as we did, the fiscal framework has allowed us to protect public investment. The last Conservative Government allowed public investment to shrivel: it hit a low of 0.3 per cent. of GDP in 1988, and in 1996-97—the last year for which they were responsible—it was just 0.6 per cent. That abysmal record of underinvestment left a legacy of decaying public services and infrastructure that every Member of this House will remember all too clearly in their own area.

Andrew Love: My right hon. Friend mentioned the upturn and when it will come. The recent evidence from the IMF and other forecasters is that the recession may last longer. If the recession is likely to last longer than until the end of this calendar year, will Ministers, when they make the Budget projections, consider putting in place a further fiscal stimulus and bringing forward of investment so that we do not have a deeper recession than is necessary?

David Gauke: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. The Liberal Democrats have proposed an interesting motion, which is very helpful to the House in one sense—it highlights an inconsistency in the Government's approach. We hear how the Government are engaging in a fiscal stimulus through public works and additional spending to help people out of the recession, but almost daily we read that public expenditure is being held back and that capital projects have been cut. A number of those points have been raised today by hon. Members, including by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable).
	The Minister, in a carefully worded response, stated that 250 further education college projects are under way and that there is some disappointment about what is going forward. However, it appears that there is a freeze on new projects, and that is the reality that Members are finding in their constituencies. It has not been made up—we are hearing about it, our constituents are telling us about it daily. We see frequent newspaper reports of PFI projects being put on hold.  The Times tells us that more than 100 school and hospital projects are being delayed. The Government have announced that many of the proposals, such as the widening of the M25, are to be held back for budgetary reasons.
	We know that there is a crisis in social housing. It is a longstanding fact that less social housing has been built in every year of this Labour Government than was built in every year under the last Conservative Government and that the number of households on local authority waiting lists for social housing has increased from 1 million to 1.8 million.
	The Government say that they are trying to spend their way out of a recession, but in reality they faced the difficulty of the unsustainable nature of their public finances, and they are unable to deliver. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for highlighting that point. However, we are not entirely sympathetic with the Liberal Democrat policy that underlies the motion, which is to try to deal with the recession through expenditure on public works. I think that that was essentially what the hon. Member for Twickenham outlined.

David Gauke: Yes, I do agree with the hon. Lady, and if the Liberal Democrats' policy is simply to identify wasteful spending, I am certainly with her. We welcome the Liberal Democrats to that cause.
	In the debate on 10 November, the hon. Member for Twickenham made a thoughtful and interesting speech, as always, and, to be fair, he addressed the greater need to free up local authorities to expand their social housing. However, he argued against a large fiscal stimulus, initially in the context of tax cuts, saying:
	"There are dangers in doing what I believe the Government propose, which is to have an unfunded tax cut, which I understand would be financed by Government borrowing. However, Government borrowing ultimately has to be paid for—it is deferred taxation or inflation, and that is not a satisfactory way forward either."
	We would certainly agree with that. The hon. Gentleman concluded by saying:
	"We need a stimulus that will be funded".—[ Official Report, 10 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 499.]
	The hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne), taunted the Conservatives for being a high-spending party, saying:
	"You do not have to remain trapped in the high-tax, wasteful spending box into which your shadow Chancellor has locked you".—[ Official Report, 10 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 543.]
	However, only a few weeks later, the Liberal Democrats are calling for higher spending, and are not calling for any tax cuts.

Sarah Teather: This has been an interesting, albeit short debate. I am aware that I have very little time to wind up, as we would like to finish by half-past 6 to ensure that House staff can go home.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) opened this debate by making a case for sensible public investment that would create jobs today and build assets for tomorrow. However, in the interventions that we have heard today, many of my hon. Friends, as well as colleagues in other parts of the House, have pointed out examples of programmes that have stalled. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) mentioned building projects for colleges in her constituency. I was surprised by the response from the Minister—he said that those projects were steaming ahead—because it is self-evident that they are not.
	The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said in his contribution that the Government would be judged on how they make a difference to people's lives on the ground. Unfortunately, that was not the tone of the Minister's response. He agreed with almost everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said about the need for a fiscal stimulus, the need to invest in social housing and the need to invest in insulation, but he made no new announcements. We are talking about an issue of scale. Ticking a box and saying that the Government have a programme is not going to help us out of recession.
	The Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke), rightly pointed out the inconsistencies in the Government's position. However, he said nothing about how the Conservatives would lead us out of the current recession and seemed to misunderstand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham was making. He has consistently argued for borrowing to invest in capital projects, not borrowing to fund tax cuts or current expenditure. Those things are different, and the hon. Gentleman should be aware of that.
	My hon. Friend made the point, which others made too, that unemployment involves a large cost. Doing nothing is not a cheaper option, and I wish that the Conservatives would be aware of that. As for railway redevelopment, the hon. Gentleman perhaps gives us credit for having more cunning than my colleagues are capable of. However, now that he has acknowledged on the Floor of the House that Liberal Democrat projects will make an immense difference to many of my hon. Friends' constituents, I am sure that his words will be quoted in Liberal Democrat "Focus" leaflets in no time at all.
	Nowhere is there a more urgent need to invest than in housing. There are 1.77 million households on the housing waiting list in England. Far from the need declining, more and more families are struggling to afford private rents or mortgages. The Council of Mortgage Lenders has estimated that 75,000 families will have their homes repossessed this year. Many will arrive at their council's door with their belongings in one hand and their children on their other arm. Councils will have nowhere to house those people, because housing projects have been drying up.
	Demand for housing does not dry up because house prices are falling or because banks have stopped lending. As soon as lending recovers, the real and present danger will be that we might end up with hyper-inflation in the market, because we will have failed to keep pace with true demand in the meantime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said, the truth is that house building in both the public and private sectors has stalled. Figures from the National House-Building Council suggest that the industry started fewer than 30 per cent. as many homes in the last quarter of 2008 as it did in the last quarter of 2007.
	In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) mentioned developments in his constituency. Many such developments are now being mothballed, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham has been arguing for a dramatic increase in the amount of funding available for councils and housing associations to buy up such properties. The Minister said that that money had been made available, but only £200 million has been made available through the national clearing house scheme, most of which has been spent. Surely that demonstrates the need for more money to be made available.
	The problem with housing associations being able to build is partly to do with lending and partly to do with the model of cross-subsidy that has been used for a decade to fund social house building. That model will simply not work in the current climate. Private sales have dried up. Housing associations that previously relied on being able to sell homes off plan cannot even sell them when they are fully built. Furthermore, low-cost home ownership lending products are no longer being offered by banks, so all the options for housing associations to cross-subsidise their social housing, affordable housing and housing for rent are just not available.
	As a consequence, many housing associations have stopped building—they have certainly stopped building shared ownership homes—because they know that mortgages are not available. The consequence for them, as for the construction industry, is that they are making many staff redundant. The Government will have to accept that Treasury subsidy-per-unit targets will not work at the moment. The Homes and Communities Agency says that it will make more flexible funding available, but we need that funding to get to housing associations quickly, so that they can take advantage of it. Delay is costly for those people waiting for social housing.
	I said that a consequence of the fact that building has stalled is that construction workers are being laid off in their thousands. The Federation of Master Builders predicts that job losses in the construction industry could reach 90,000 this year. The consequence is not just short-term, and it is not just misery for families whose major breadwinner has lost their job. The costs will be felt in the British economy for at least a decade, because even when the money to build again becomes available, the country will have lost vital construction skills, and it will take a decade, or possibly even a generation, for us to recover. Families, certainly in my constituency, cannot wait that long for house building to begin again.
	In the face of that, the Government have been tinkering at the edges. They are bringing forward £400 million in the next 18 months for social housing providers to deliver just 5,000 homes, but 1.7 million households are on the housing waiting list. A further £150 million was announced in the pre-Budget report, but reports from the Department for Communities and Local Government suggest that it has not yet even worked out how to allocate that. It is a drop in the ocean given the fiscal stimulus that is needed for the recession, and given the number of families desperate for housing.
	Some £12 billion was frittered away on a VAT tax cut that made little or no difference to most families; that money would have been better used in putting unemployed people back into work, and in leaving a lasting legacy that would save energy, reduce bills and fight climate change. With the money used to make a tiny VAT cut, we could have insulated every school and hospital in the country, funded insulation for a million people languishing in fuel poverty, and have built 40,000 extra zero-carbon social homes. The Conservative spokesperson said that that was not a response to the recession; well, it is certainly a response to need, and he has come up with no response to the recession whatever.
	If the Government really wanted to cut VAT, how much more useful would it have been to cut the rate of VAT for rebuilding and renovation? My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) made a point about the number of empty homes that are left derelict, not just in the private sector, but often in the public sector. There are more than 700,000 empty properties in England—enough to make a sizeable dent in the amount of housing needed in this country—yet the Government are not prepared to take the action necessary to bring those homes back into use. What is needed from the Government is a dramatic building programme that focuses attention across all Departments. They need to get the public sector to release land now. They need to bring forward substantial amounts of new money, and money in the existing comprehensive spending review, to make sure that housing associations and councils can buy up land and property while prices are cheaper.

Bob Russell: To mention just one of the many examples that have been given on the Floor of the House in this debate, the builders are to leave the Colchester Institute site in the next few weeks. Many other colleges are in exactly the same position; building work is grinding to a halt. What is happening?

Angela Eagle: There is no freeze to the capital programme for further education expenditure, and there is no question but that the £110 million that was brought forward in the pre-Budget report this year will be spent. There are signs that the ability of some colleges to raise their own funds for proposed projects is being affected by the downturn, and it is right that the Learning and Skills Council should take a look at the proposals for capital schemes in the pipeline to assess the likely impact on funding support for individual projects. I understand the concerns that have been raised, but hon. Members who are anxious about projects in their constituency should recognise and accept that the 253 projects to which my right hon. Friend the Financial referred have been given the go-ahead, and that more than 150 of them are due to be completed this year, so there is a substantial programme of capital works in the pipeline—£2.3 billion over the next three years. I point out that the figure was zero in 1997.
	We know that we can sensibly combine our commitment to investment in our infrastructure and our public services with a real boost to the economy to help us through this very difficult global downturn. That is why we are bringing forward capital expenditure—not only because it is the right thing to do if we are to support jobs and stimulate economic activity, but because it will modernise Britain's infrastructure and ensure that we are in the best possible position to take advantage of the upturn when it comes. That is why we are using the fiscal stimulus to invest in our competitiveness for generations to come.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) that it is far more costly to do nothing than to invest in increased public expenditure as part of a co-ordinated fiscal stimulus to deal with the unprecedented global situation in which we find ourselves. That is why the pre-Budget report in November set out a fiscal stimulus, including £3 billion of capital expenditure on schools, transport and homes, which is to be brought forward from 2010-11 to the next financial year. That is real help now, and it is in contrast to the attitude of the do nothing Tories. This Government have taken concrete action to give a timely boost to prevent job losses and stimulate economic activity, and we are on track to deliver that spending.
	There are reports that the difficult economic climate will adversely affect the private finance initiatives that are a common feature of the Government's public investment programmes. Some of those worries have been expressed this evening. There is no doubt that the market is challenging. The credit crunch has reduced liquidity in the financial markets, and that has affected all debt-raising. Understandably, there is a concern that that could result in new PFI deals struggling to find finance, or increase costs for those that do obtain finance. Obviously, we are watching the situation extremely closely.
	Projects continue to reach financial closure. As my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said, in January, two projects—the M80 highway project and the Forest Gate housing project—closed successfully. That involved £370 million of public investment, which had been committed and which is now being put to effect. We are working to push forward all the projects currently in the pipeline. In recognition of the potential difficulties facing such initiatives, Treasury officials are working with other Departments and Partnerships UK to help ensure that projects are able to obtain finance in a timely fashion. In addition, the measures to unfreeze credit announced last month by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor are intended to help remove barriers to lending.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) made an impassioned speech, as usual, about the importance of protecting communities during such downturns. I agree with him about the policy of the Conservative party, which is to cut public expenditure now, right in the middle of a recession. That is the opposite of a fiscal stimulus. The Conservatives would not do nothing—they would take action that would make matters worse. By cutting public expenditure, the Conservatives are once more falling into the trap of laying waste to entire communities and huge areas of the country. This Government will not fall into that trap. We are committed to ensuring that public expenditure remains higher, even after the fiscal consolidation that we have planned. Public capital expenditure will be 1.8 per cent. of gross domestic product in 2013-14, which is three times more than the paltry 0.6 per cent. that we inherited from the Opposition. The Government have addressed the huge backlog—

Paul Burstow: claimed to move the closure ( Standing Order No. 36).
	 Question put forthwith, That the question be now put.
	 Question agreed to.

John Bercow: There is little doubt that very fundamental reform of the expenses system is required, as discussed recently, and that it has to incorporate audit, transparency and accountability. On the Minister's theme of not knocking everything, however, does he agree that robust reform of that system needs to be accompanied by a robust defence of the legitimacy of a decent allowances system, with proper tribute paid to the late Robin Cook for improving it in such a way that we can effectively cater to the needs of our constituents?

Chris Bryant: I am not sure a Bill is the precise way of advancing such a suggestion. It might be possible—indeed, it might make more sense, because one would be changing the traditions of the House—if such a proposal were advanced by the whole House. I am not saying that I entirely oppose the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. Indeed, if he looks back at questions that I once asked when sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), he might see something that would interest him.
	Ordinary oral questions to Ministers and our tradition of allowing interventions in speeches, which I have noticed in any other Parliament, mean that those in power are held robustly to account. Only last year, we made that regime even tougher by introducing topical questions, thereby allowing Members to ask Ministers completely open questions on any subject. I think that all hon. Members would agree that that has been a significant innovation.

Gordon Prentice: Given what has been reported over the past few weeks, should we not embrace what the Public Administration Committee's suggestion and introduce a mandatory register of lobbyists, giving details of the lobbyist and those whom they are lobbying?

Chris Bryant: I merely say that I want to see reform of the House of Lords. I do not want to squander through impatience the opportunity that exists; nor, for that matter, do I want fear of radicalism so to infect us that we do not advance reform.
	Action is vital in this area. As Lady Royall pointed out in  The Guardian last week,
	"it is obviously wrong—wholly wrong—if what peers do to earn a living warps their work as parliamentarians".
	As she also said, in the House of Lords,
	"We in this House have a responsibility to adhere to high standards, and we have to ensure that we adhere to those high standards in order to ensure that there is trust in the whole of our parliamentary process."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 26 January 2009; Vol. 707, c. 11.]
	It is the whole of the parliamentary process that matters here, and the Government stand ready to act.
	Of course, as the hon. Gentleman himself said, our constituents are primarily concerned about their families, their homes and their jobs; but they also want to be as certain as possible that, in the words recited every day by the Speaker's Chaplain, we, as Members of Parliament,
	"lay aside all private interests and prejudices"
	and simply
	"seek to improve the condition of all mankind".
	They want to know that Parliament is entirely focused on the sole purpose of the common good. That is why in every era we need to restate our high ideals. When the Nolan Committee produced its report in 1995, it pointed to seven principles that it saw as vital in public life and that have since been included in the code of conduct. They are worth repeating—selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. It is also why Parliament must always be ripe for reform.

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree strongly that there is a danger that Parliament is held in disrepute by the electorate, and that is a serious danger because it is when external forces—the street—take over. We are not far away from such a situation now. Indeed, we saw such a situation today when the three Front Benches were all patting each other on the back and agreeing about the particular economic model that has caused the problem. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that differences in Parliament are healthy for democracy? When all the Front Benches speak the same language, that is not good for democracy.

Shailesh Vara: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman and he will have an opportunity to speak later.
	The Lib Dems speak of restoring
	"the trust of the British public in Parliament...and in politics as a profession."
	Let us consider the idea of the Lib Dems talking about trust in British politics. On page 21 of their campaign document, "Effective Opposition", produced by the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors, it says:
	"Be wicked, act shamelessly, stir endlessly."
	On page 23, it says:
	"Don't be afraid to exaggerate. For example, responses to surveys and petitions are always 'massive'. If a council is doing something badly public expressions are always of 'outrage'",
	and on page 4, it states:
	"Positive campaigning will NOT be enough to win control of the council."
	On page 6, it says that
	"you can secure support from votes from voters who normally vote Tory by being effectively anti-Labour and similarly in a Tory area secure Labour votes by being anti-Tory."
	It goes on to say:
	"Oppose all service cuts...No cut is going to be popular and why court the unpopularity that goes with the responsibility of power".
	Finally, the document— [ Interruption. ] I see that my reminder to the Lib Dems of their campaigning tactics is too much for the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who moved the motion, because he has had to leave the Chamber. It is a pity. I presume that he knows it already, and that was why he felt it necessary to leave.
	On page 33—I am coming to the end of my quotations from this document—it states:
	"You are NOT running the council. It's NOT your problem."
	At the last elections—the London elections—the party that has so graciously tabled the motion decided to break the rules. In December 2008, Ofcom ruled that the Lib Dem London mayoral television adverts were in "extremely serious breach" of guidance outlined by the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice. Indeed, the television companies were fined a total of £40,000 and it was later revealed that the Lib Dems could have been breaking Electoral Commission rules by not declaring the adverts as donations in kind.
	It is important to put on record all that I have just said because it highlights the inconsistency between a party's putting forward such a motion and the practice on the ground.

Richard Younger-Ross: I recall listening to an interview with David Steel in the 1970s—it might have been on "Desert Island Discs". He said that being a politician should be like going into the Church; it should be one of the highest callings. That was against a background of local government corruption and of a popular belief that MPs were in it only for themselves and that they would say anything to win an election. That view was reflected in a play that I think was called "Vote, vote, vote for Joey Barton"—[Hon. Members: "Nigel Barton!"] Of course, it was Nigel Barton. Some 30 years before that, Howard Spring wrote "Fame is the Spur".
	It has been said that Members of Parliament are held in high esteem in their constituencies, but that Parliament and politicians in general are held in low esteem. Since David Steel's comments, there have been problems and scandals on both sides of the House and at both ends of the building. Cheap comments from the Conservative Front Bench do not aid the debate. Sounding like a budgerigar does not take us forward.
	Some of the problems in the House of Lords have been experienced in the House of Commons. We had full-time Members of Parliament and Members of Parliament who were employed in part-time work elsewhere. The latter had a night job and a day job. Members of the House of Lords still have to do that. Their Lordships are given a small allowance and most have other employment to supplement it. Some work as lobbyists.

Richard Younger-Ross: That sum includes accommodation and other matters. We get money for such items in addition to our salary, so the hon. Gentleman does not compare like with like.
	If we are to reform the other end of the building, we should consider making their Lordships full time. If they are to be full time, they need to be salaried. If they are to be salaried, they need to be elected on the same basis as us.
	At our end of the building, it is often said that the media hold us in low esteem. They correctly pick up on corruption and instances when hon. Members have not done right. They pick especially on cases of people who appear to get away with blue murder. A former Member of Parliament—I know who it was but I shall not name him because my point is not party political—was brought before the Standards and Privileges Committee for shares for influence. That Member was found not guilty because the business that offered him shares had gone bankrupt, so he had not committed an offence. The public do not understand that.
	If the public are to esteem us, we must reform the way in which we pay ourselves and deal with our expenses, but not in a hair-shirt manner, as some hon. Members would have us do sometimes for cheap political purposes. That is not just. We should also refuse to listen to those who say that they want to keep things as they are. Although, by and large, most Members of Parliament do nothing wrong in what they claim, the public do not believe it. As has often been said, justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done.
	We must therefore consider a system whereby what we claim is not only clear and transparent but beyond reproach. The public do not understand Members of Parliament making profits from buying flats. In 1992, several Conservative Members, who were elected in 1987, lost money because of the condition of the housing market at the time. No one in the media said, "Oh dear! These MPs need to be recompensed for their loss." It will also not be understood if Members who were elected in 1997 and 2001 make tens of thousands of pounds on the appreciation of properties that they have bought. We should move to a system that gets away from that. It would be best if we did not pay ourselves allowances for some items. For example, the House of Commons could rent accommodation and allocate it to us in the same way as our offices are allocated. If flats were furnished, we would not need to be paid an allowance to do that. That would be clear, transparent and non-corrupt.

George Young: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who would top the poll in any secret ballot for Leader of the House. He made a typically defiant, courageous speech, and I agree with what he says about the Government's constitutional programme. The previous Lord Chancellor said that we have not a constitutional renewal Bill, but a constitutional retreat Bill. On Lords reform, I remember being told that the first elections to the upper house would take place at the same time as the 2001 general election. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman is quite right about allowing peers to retire so that their party can refresh their troops in the upper House, allowing younger people to play their part.
	One of the paradoxes of life is that people like their local Member of Parliament, but refuse to believe he or she is typical. Wherever I go, I am told, "We're frightfully lucky here, but the rest of you are up to no good." The reputation of the House would be much higher if people had confidence in their own judgment, based on their experience of their own MP instead of what they read in the press.
	Much has been achieved in this House in recent years, and with the imminent end of dual reporting for MPs, a new guide to the rules—it was published today, coincidentally—a new allowance regime and Select Committee, and greater transparency on receipts, we have the opportunity to build on past strengths and to do even better. As the Committee on Standards in Public Life said about the Commons:
	"We endorse the view that standards in the House of Commons are generally high, and that the overwhelming majority of members seek to, and in practice do, uphold high standards of propriety."
	I see many of my opposite numbers from other countries who come to look at the regime here, and by any international standards, our political system is pretty clean. We deal with the inevitable lapses well, but we must never become complacent.
	One of the consequences of introducing a tougher regime in this House is that it has led to pressure being applied to other parts of the body politic, and it is helpful to put our disciplinary regime in the broader context of that for Members of the European Parliament, Ministers and members of the other place. Anyone can make a complaint about an MP to the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. If the complaint raises matters of significance, he will produce a report for my Committee, which we will publish unamended, saying whether or not that complaint is upheld, and we can then propose appropriate punishments, some of which are career-ending. None of the other regimes—neither the ministerial code nor the current code for Members of the upper House—has our features of open access, independent scrutiny, publication of findings and harsh reprisal. The code for MEPs has the most generous of all allowance regimes, with the most relaxed audit trail.
	The ministerial code is policed by the Prime Minister, who can decide whether to refer a matter to his independent adviser and whether to publish any report. Neither procedure has ever been invoked. I once complained that a Foreign Secretary had broken the ministerial code. My complaint was passed by the Prime Minister to the then Foreign Secretary, who replied to me, saying that he had not broken the code, showing a circularity of process. In the upper House, the complaints procedure has no independent element and limited sanctions. There would be greater confidence in the two other codes if they adopted those features of ours.
	One of the recommendations that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made is to extend the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to cover the upper House. That recognises the regulatory strength of our regime. However, the proposal to extend the remit of the commissioner raises questions about the capacity of his office to take on additional work, while at the same time carrying out with due rigour his inquiries into complaints made against Members of this House. The present commissioner is contracted to work four days a week, although I know that he works more than that. If we are going to extend his remit to the House of Lords, which has more Members than our House, there will be questions to do with resources and whether he will be able to deal with all complaints personally. We therefore need to think that proposal through.
	Some have suggested that by electing the upper House, we reduce the risk of abuse. I am a firm believer in a predominantly elected second Chamber, but I doubt whether changing the mode of entry would of itself drive up standards.
	Let me turn to a case that has given rise to some comment, both inside and outside the House. Last week, my Committee published its report on the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway). We required the hon. Member to apologise to the House through the Committee Chairman and to repay nearly £4,000, which in our judgment he had overpaid to his son. Some hon. Members felt that those sanctions did not go far enough and said as much, possibly before having had time to read the report in full. Those who have read the Committee's report will have seen that the breach was less serious than the case on which the Committee had previously reported and that it predated that case, so it can hardly be said to have compounded it. My Committee claims no monopoly of wisdom, but we had a thorough process of inquiry, with a 55-page report and annexes. We considered the case in detail in two meetings and came to a unanimous conclusion.

Chris Bryant: The Lord Chancellor reminds me of the right honourable nature of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young).
	If the House is able to end the business of having to report separately to the Registrar of Members' Interests and the Electoral Commission, the Government stand ready to commence section 59 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 so that we, as parliamentarians, have to report to only one place.
	Several hon. Members referred to the matter of whether should elect all members of Select Committees and whether we should elect the Chairmen of Select Committees by secret ballot. Although that sometimes seems an attractive option, there is a danger that if the majority vote were always to carry the decision on the membership and Chairman of every Committee, we would not have the independent Committees that we need. The minor parties would suffer most.
	I say to those who call for a business Committee of the House that they fail to understand the major and significant difference between this House, in which the Government are constituted solely by virtue of their majority, and other Parliaments that operate differently, in which Ministers are often precluded from being members of the legislature. To those who believe that a nirvana might come if we were to have a business Committee, I say that other Parliaments that have such committees have precisely the same complaints about whether there is the right allocation of time and whether individual Back Benchers have their interests met and can make speeches.
	Some hon. Members suggested that this Government have not been radical enough on constitutional reform. All that I would say is that when the Liberals were in power, they never managed to reform the House of Lords in any way at all. The Conservatives never had any desire to do so, and it is only this Government who have managed to remove the majority of the hereditary peers. It is only by virtue of our work that the Law Lords have been reformed. We are proud to be a Government who have brought forward devolution and freedom of information.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) demanded that I agree with every single thing that he said, but I am afraid that I am unable to do that. He said that I have fallen among thieves by virtue of my membership of the Government. Well, there is honour among thieves, and the truth is that this Government are committed to the reform of Parliament. Nobody should have a job for life, we should have a smaller Chamber and we have laid out a clear path to reform.
	I am glad to have my right hon. Friends the Leader of the House and the Lord Chancellor by my side as I point out to hon. Members who have said that we are not being diligent enough in bringing forward constitutional reform that we committed ourselves in the Queen's Speech to introducing a constitutional renewal Bill later this year. I believe that the whole House is united in wanting to protect its reputation and in its determination to do everything necessary to ensure that that happens.

Traffic Management (Essex)

Ben Chapman: My right hon. Friend makes the point much better than I was doing that the college is at the heart of the community. It cannot be judged solely in day to day terms because it is part of the history of the area and of Eastham in particular. People who have been educated very well there over the years, thanks to my right hon. Friend and others, greatly value its presence. It is emblematic of Eastham.
	The closure of Carlett Park was not always inevitable, but sadly the college has almost made it so. Steps could have been taken to ensure that it adapted to remain relevant and to survive. It should have focused on engaging with local businesses, working together to ensure that local people could be educated locally in a way that provided them with the skills they need for our modern economy. The proximity of Carlett Park to the large and progressive companies in the Wirral international business park offered obvious opportunities for that kind of cooperation. Sadly, that has not been done and if the campus closes it will contribute to removing the heart of the community. I have told the college repeatedly that their facilities are about community as well as education, but it falls on deaf ears.
	In recent times, Eastham has been threatened by two planning proposals, which have caused considerable anger and concern in the community. There have been obvious objections to the presence of heavy industry so close to a residential area—a mediaeval residential area at that—and one has to ask how such an area was ever zoned for industrial use. Agri Energy made an application for a grant to invest in a gasification plant which has now been put on hold following widespread local opposition. Proposals remain, however, for a Biossence plant that would convert waste into energy. Recent ministerial assurances about air quality will not go far enough to satisfy the range of concerns felt by my constituents on this issue. These include noise pollution as well as air pollution, disturbance to the local environment and safety. I have made a range of representations on this subject to the chief executive of Wirral council and the chief executives of the companies. I have asked parliamentary questions and met Ministers, and I have also offered local campaigning organisations meetings and the possibility of presenting a petition to Parliament.
	In response to these threats, my constituents in Eastham have been organised and vocal in defence of their neighbourhood. The Eastham Village Preservation Association, founded in 1969, has fought hard on several issues, including those I have mentioned. More recently, residents have also formed Eastham Fights Back, which continues to voice their opposition forcefully.
	The most recent blow to be dealt to the people of Eastham is the closure of its library and one-stop shop housed in the same building, which I had the pleasure of opening in August 2005. I welcome the retention of such facilities in Bromborough, but they will be much less accessible for Eastham residents. The closure of the library is deeply concerning to me on two levels. The first is that the council may have acted without due process, failing entirely to consult the public. At best that could be unconstitutional, but at worst it could be maladministration. It is certainly unprincipled and demonstrative of a lack of vision.
	Eastham library is to be closed as part of Wirral council's strategic asset review, involving 11 libraries and more than 20 other facilities. This library—as was the case with Woodchurch, I think—was not earmarked for closure but was added later, after the consultation process. There is at present no statutory requirement for consultation by local authorities before closing libraries and they are not obliged to tell the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that they are doing so. I am testing out what sanction the community has against that.
	Although I understand the local authority's need to balance the budget and to avoid high raises in council tax, especially at a time when families across the country are finding it difficult to make ends meet, Wirral council has none the less received above inflation increases in support from central Government every year since 1997. It is also worth noting that the library has received investment of more than £300,000 over three years. Its closure thus does not seem to make economic, or any other, sense. As a result, I have tabled questions to the DCMS and the Department for Communities and Local Government in order to establish whether provisions are in place to discourage such closures and how those closures fit into the broad framework of Government policy on libraries.

Ben Chapman: That is an extraordinarily helpful suggestion. A number of assets have been proposed for community transfer in the event of other things, but no preparation has been made for that and no guidance has been given. No packs have been handed out and no explanation has been given of how to set up a trust or whatever is needed to run such facilities. No opinion has been offered on what happens when one has managed to raise the revenue to run the facility but is suddenly faced with a high capital cost. What on earth is a community group running a local facility to do if the roof goes? That is the sort of lesson that I could learn, with others, from visiting my right hon. Friend's constituency.
	Although it is not legally binding, the DCMS expects there to be a well-publicised consultation with the local community over a minimum of six to eight weeks. That most certainly did not take place in the case of Eastham. The second cause for concern is that Eastham library is a valuable asset. The flood of correspondence that I have received from alarmed constituents, angry and shocked at the decision, is evidence that it is used and valued by young and old alike. The loss to the community is obvious. Wirral council's website lists the library as one of few key amenities on the Mill Park estate, which is the largest council estate in the ward. The many groups who benefited from that local community library will be worst affected by the closure.
	Communities such as Eastham are local, and the facilities that make up their heart need to be local, too. Eastham deserves not to be merely subject to the function of chance and all manner of random decisions, regardless of their adverse effect. Instead, its local authority and others should adopt a strategic view. The catalogue of recent events that I have outlined, on top of the loss of a post office some while ago, demonstrates that that is all sadly lacking and my constituents are suffering as a result.
	Eastham is diverse both in terms of architecture and landscape and, crucially, in terms of the needs of its population. A comprehensive strategy must be put in place that takes into account that diversity and the proud heritage of the community. Such a strategy should, among other things, take account of the current and historic bias towards the north of the peninsula.
	I call on Wirral council to review its decisions on the closure of 11 libraries, including tragically that of Higher Bebington, and the loss of more than 20 other facilities, taking due account of the effect on communities. I ask the DCMS to consider the effect of closing those 11 libraries at a stroke. I ask the council and the Department, together with the DCLG, to look at the processes involved in the closure of Eastham—and, indeed, Woodchurch—which seem to be on the borders of immorality and illegality.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Ben Chapman) responds, may I say that I am do not wish to curtail his Adjournment debate, which is obviously very important to him? I would ask him, however, to bear in mind that the House seriously truncated its debates earlier so that the staff of the House could get home.